Phoenicaea wrote:A suggestion for the debate, if I m allowed to be considered about. What describes these situation is corruption, perhaps in definition we should to indroduce this category. What characterizes that state more and before than socialism and authoritarian steers, it is widespread and desperate corruption.
Even if we are aknowledged this sort of words, as corruption, are difficoult to apply, because they have philosophical meaning and debate about, we should take an emphirical and not-moral definition of corruption and apllying it. Since it is the real pratical thing which influences some states, as significavely as the ownership of property or the amount of state-employeed.
You define it as socialist state, dictatorship state, more or less communist or authoritian, without the corruption quality, if you know something about Venezuela, I guess, you are not staring the real life political context.
A dictatorship state without corruption is, historically, laughable. It's always been part of the package — of course we would factor that into our analysis. Sure, you can describe this situation as pure corruption. However, it leaves out a ton of other, non-corruption based issues. For example, el Constituyente (or National Constituent Assembly), is a product of one-party authoritarianism pushed by the Maduro regime. Another example would be delayed gubernatorial elections, again a product of one-party authoritarianism. Corruption played no part in doing this — it is certainly a major key to this, but is not the sole overriding factor that you are making it out to be.
